In May of 2013 this blog pointed out some of the ways in which feminists -- not all women, just feminists -- unwittingly prove that women are not the equal of men. Last night I was reminded of yet another way.
I saw Gone Girl. It features various female characters who are ditzy, two-faced, or downright sociopathic, along with a couple of intelligent, level-headed, likable female characters.
As you may be aware, feminists have objected strongly to the portrayal of the female sociopath, saying she presents a bad image of women. The feminists seem particularly incensed because this sociopath wreaks her havoc in a uniquely female way, leveling unfounded accusations of rape, falsely posing as an abused woman, and taking advantage of naive men.
Strangely, the feminists have not objected to the other female characters. If I were the type of woman whose sense of personal self-worth was wrapped up inextricably with that of every female character I saw on screen, I'd be far angrier about the portrayal of the ditzy, gossipy neighbor, or the airheaded Nancy Grace parody, or the trailer trash robber. The main sociopath is, while evil, is also intelligent, inventive, and capable.
But what's most telling is simply that the feminists have chosen to complain in the first place. Movies are, after all, fictional entertainment. And they simply wouldn't be entertaining if they didn't feature a wide variety of both male and female characters spanning the gamut from saintly to evil.
Should there be a rule that all the bad people must be men and women can only be portrayed in a positive light?
Imagine if men objected to negative portrayals of men.
"We at the National Organization of Men object to the portrayal of Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. The invidious stereotype that most serial killers are male feeds into the kind of sexism which hurts the self-image of impressionable young boys."
"We would like to register our unhappiness with the character of Sergeant Barnes in Platoon. That most war criminals are male is a pernicious cliche which has haunted men since the dawn of time. It would be far preferable if those soldiers who do happen to be men were shown to be acting in a more positive, peaceful spirit of cooperation."
"NOM does not approve of the character Freddy Krueger in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. These films promulgate the ancient, outdated canard that men are responsible for most of the violent crime in this country. We demand that in the future Freddy be portrayed as a giving, caring, and compassionate person."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
I read a lot (too many) of conservative websites & some of them disliked Gone Girl because they thought it gave a bad view of marriage. People are touchy when it comes to movies. They think that if X does this in a movie, it means the filmmaker is saying all Xs do this, and this entity "Hollywood" is making a general statement about Y.
It's just a movie. They're not saying that every woman boils bunnies when she's rejected. But boiling bunnies is more photogenic than going on eating binges and gaining 40 pounds. The more typical female reaction to rejection. You want to see that? Go to a wise little French movie, not a Hollywood movie. A Hollywood movie will give you boiled bunnies.
Having said that, I do think the woman who wrote the book was making an accurate observation about the nature of trouble-making personality types (sociopaths?) and how men and women differ. Women make trouble with gossip and shit-stirring, men make trouble by direct aggression.
Coco
Coco --
I hadn't been aware that conservatives had disliked the movie because of its portrayal of marriage. You're right, that's equally silly.
And yes, a boiled bunny is more dramatic. (And try to find an attractive actress who'd be willing to gain 40 pounds for the role.)
Good characterization of the difference between men and women.
If you are trying to parody feminists, use the word 'trope' liberally. They love that word.
Steven --
Good point.
That was very well written and humoured me.
Shaun --
Thank you.
A little OT but it's about feminism & anyway if you think it's not appropriate, don't approve.
You've probably heard of the landing on the comet - I admit, I haven't been keeping up with space developments. Here is a link:
http://www.space.com/27697-rosetta-comet-landing-full-coverage.html
Also, it's a European venture, so the first I heard was on BBC News America. I don't know that it was scientifically such a breakthrough but it was a significant engineering achievement and, well, a neat trick! The probe landed on a speeding comet.
I guess it's a tic with me now, but I looked up pictures of the team to see whether it was "diverse" and sure enough, it was mostly white men. A few white women, which I have sexistically assumed are not doing the heavy lifting but are there doing "showcase" jobs. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my hunch.
As in these cases there were photos of the team when the landing occurred cheering. It seems the chief scientist, a working class Englishman, wore a shirt decorated with pictures of naked gals.
Some science writer feminist prune called him to task for this. She said it was "misogyny" and "no wonder there are so few women in STEM." He apologize, in tears. On twitter, the feminist prune, satisfied with her arson, wrote smugly, "Now can we all move on with our lives?"
I am speechless.
Well, I'm not speechless. The scientist should have told the feminist prune to go suck it. About the word "misogyny" - I have not heard this word so much as in the last two years. There is real misogyny in the world. I have for example just learned of a barbaric AFrican custom called "breast ironing" where older women (it's always older women) try to prevent the developing breasts of young women. Then there is genital mutilation. Sickening.
I hate Western feminists. You shouldn't think that all women agree with them. We don't.
Thanks for putting up with a my rant.
The one & only Coco, the Rusyn Ranter
The one and only Coco --
Not off topic at all, and your rants are always welcome.
Yes, had heard of the comet landing, though hadn't heard of the incident involving the feminist and the shirt.
I'd never heard of "breast ironing" before. Ugh. And yes, the genital mutilation is even worse, but of course Western feminists would never focus on that. They are, in their own way, the new Shakers, prudish beyond all imagining.
I touched on that here:
http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-victorians.html
Another feminist-related recent news item....
Excerpts from a bit in the Washington Times:
"The Pentagon's politically correct policy of pushing women into front-line combat positions suffered a setback this week: Three female Marine officers washed out of the Infantry Officer Course.
The Marines, two captains and a second lieutenant, bring to 27 the number of women who have not been able to complete the officer training.
...The women were dropped from the 13-week course at the Marine Corps Base at Quantico, Virginia, two weeks into the training, but they advance further than all other women since the physically demanding course was opened to female officers in late 2012. They passed the grueling combat endurance test but were asked to leave after failing to maintain the pace during a long hike carrying a backpack weighing more than 100 pounds.
.... Aaron MacLean, a former Marine infantry officer, said pressure is mounting from radical feminist advocacy groups to lower Marine standards so women can pass the grueling training tests."
That last sentence puts feminism to shame and disgrace, and highlights the incredible selfishness of these types of feminists. If standards are lowered, there will be situations where our fighting men are held back by women who passed lower standard tests and will die as a result. But for these feminists, the success of our fighting force, and the potential needless loss of life are less important than getting women on the battlefield.
- Ed
Ed --
I couldn't agree more. The radical feminists are a cancer on our society. You're right: the fact that soldiers will die is less important than that women be proven "equal."
What sort of "equality" does it represent when standards are lowered so that a certain group can be included?
I've heard that when there are units with both genders, and it comes time to dig a latrine or something like that, the women will mostly just stand around and watch while the men do the work. That kind of thing cannot help morale.
I agree.
Along similar lines, a friend of my family was a former fire chief in Mass. Due to political pressure he was forced to take on a female firefighter. As has been discussed on this blog, lower physical standards have been adopted for women to allow them to pass physical tests for firefighters (such as dragging a heavy sack across a room, simulating an unconscious victim).
According to this fire chief, the women on their crew was unable to perform any role on the team due to her physical weakness. And when they went out on a call that required actual use of the firefighting equipment, she just stood to the side and they operated a 'man' down.
Another victory for feminism at the expense of society.
- Ed
Ed --
Interesting story. I've also heard that on police departments, men generally hate getting partnered with a woman because they know that if there's any sort of showdown, she will be deadweight. And even worse, there's more likely to be a showdown since most criminals are less intimidated by a female cop.
Post a Comment